Definitely agree. But being tall and long helped make for a good style matchup for Forrest. Had he been shrunken down he probably would've won regardless because of your point, but because he wasn't I don't think it's the best example... that's all.

If you had to choose between the two, would you rather have fast hands and bum technique, or slow hands and sound technique?

I'd argue handspeed is part the product of good punching technique

And I disagree on Saddler, his jab was ponderous and he gave up height throwing it, his long range punching generally isn't too good, his hands quite low with a chin up in the air. His in fighting is very good, lovely fast devastating bolo punches. And that takes us back to my initial poing, he can throw these quick and fast hooks, so it's not like he doesn't have the natural speed, but he doesn't have a quick snappy jab or straight right to dominate from outside? The technique isn't quite there with him and Archie did say he would have wanted Saddler to boss with his jab more and he would have been incredible if he mastered this

Let's take another example of speed/athleticism over technique: Taylor-Hopkins - Taylor much the worse technician but the speed of Taylor won out. Hopkins even identified Taylor's 'bow and arrow' but still couldn't quite deal with the speed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Perhaps the best way to look at it would be on a continuum. Jones has some technical prowess -as long as he has been boxing, he had to at least have picked some up accidentally at least!

But Jones really cannot be termed a technician. He could put technically-sound hooks and crosses together exceptionally well, his balance was good, he understood range, and could even slip shots very well. He showed all of that against Tate. Wlad fights like Frankenstein, but his jab and right are technically perfect.

Does Wlad's mastery of a few punches make him a technician?

Even those technically-sound things that Jones did were partly due to athleticism as well -balance for example, range, slipping shots to some degree.

Shouldn't more be required? Most amateurs learn how to throw straight punches and balance within weeks. How many times did Jones weave under a shot and come up with a counter at an angle? In the Tate fight, he went kind of under a left, but in the wrong direction. What'd he do against the ropes? He did then what he still does -an Ali-imitation. Squaring off, leaning on the ropes, high guard, giving up his ribs. That is bad technique. I'm sure you'd agree that just because he got away with it doesn't make it good technique.

The proof against his being a technician is very strong. I know you know this already. You can actually see his short shelf-life in that Tate fight. He is doing now what he did then, only slower and without the output. What's changed? Nothing really.

The seeds of his humiliation were planted in precisely those spectacular knockouts that we all celebrated. If he built a foundation in fundamentals instead of relying on fleeting youthful vigor, his Legs of Stone would not have to be so catastrophic.

Question: What is Jones today?

Answer: He's Ali without the guile and without the chin...!

The thing is there are many technical aspects to master in boxing. Basic straight punches can be learnt quickly but mastering them takes along time.

As technicians Jones and Ali do cut corners and paid the price. Ali's defensive openings for the left hook saw him lose at 28/29. Jones didn't age worse than ALi either, he didn't lose by being actually beaten until the age of 35, the age where Ali was losing to Spinks and getting disputed decisions. Ali not only has technical defensive errors but also rarely sits on punches and doesn't really properly throw the left hook.

If you want to point out Jones technical weaknesses your best viewing the Harding and Griffin 1 fights, where he was somewhat neutralised by technique and the jab.

Ali after the age of 28-29 was very reliant on his chin, that's the real difference between the 2, when Ali aged his chin kept him in fights but they were still pretty much done at the same age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Question for you: Would Wlad be as successful if he was 6'1?

Well he could of been depending on his mentality imo but he'd need more than a jab and high guard and would have to adapt. He has excellent handspeed, excellent jab and he used to have an amazing left hook, which Steward barred him from using. He'd have to change from outfighter to mid range/in fighter. He'd need to learn to move his head and would be forced to back opponents up rather than only boxing in and out. As a package he'd need to become like Holyfield

And I disagree on Saddler, his jab was ponderous and he gave up height throwing it, his long range punching generally isn't too good, his hands quite low with a chin up in the air. His in fighting is very good, lovely fast devastating bolo punches. And that takes us back to my initial poing, he can throw these quick and fast hooks, so it's not like he doesn't have the natural speed, but he doesn't have a quick snappy jab or straight right to dominate from outside? The technique isn't quite there with him and Archie did say he would have wanted Saddler to boss with his jab more and he would have been incredible if he mastered this

What's the toughest aspect of technique to master? Infighting. It's very tough in there. Show me a great infighter and 9 times out of 10 I'm calling him a technician.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Let's take another example of speed/athleticism over technique: Taylor-Hopkins - Taylor much the worse technician but the speed of Taylor won out. Hopkins even identified Taylor's 'bow and arrow' but still couldn't quite deal with the speed.

Great example. However, though "technique will usually beat speed," is a pretty damn good principle, a better one is "styles make fights." Pryor-Arguello being the supreme example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

The thing is there are many technical aspects to master in boxing. Basic straight punches can be learnt quickly but mastering them takes along time.

As technicians Jones and Ali do cut corners and paid the price. Ali's defensive openings for the left hook saw him lose at 28/29. Jones didn't age worse than ALi either, he didn't lose by being actually beaten until the age of 35, the age where Ali was losing to Spinks and getting disputed decisions. Ali not only has technical defensive errors but also rarely sits on punches and doesn't really properly throw the left hook.

If you want to point out Jones technical weaknesses your best viewing the Harding and Griffin 1 fights, where he was somewhat neutralised by technique and the jab.

Ali after the age of 28-29 was very reliant on his chin, that's the real difference between the 2, when Ali aged his chin kept him in fights but they were still pretty much done at the same age.

Yeah.

Question: What is Jones now?

Answer: He is Ali without the guile and without the chin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Well he could of been depending on his mentality imo but he'd need more than a jab and high guard and would have to adapt. He has excellent handspeed, excellent jab and he used to have an amazing left hook, which Steward barred him from using. He'd have to change from outfighter to mid range/in fighter. He'd need to learn to move his head and would be forced to back opponents up rather than only boxing in and out. As a package he'd need to become like Holyfield

!

...Listen man. That question was for Pete the Prince. When I'm laying a TRAP for Pete the Prince or whoever else, don't screw it up.

Great example. However, though "technique will usually beat speed," is a pretty damn good principle, a better one is "styles make fights." Pryor-Arguello being the supreme example.

It's about time somebody Alexis up. I've been looking for mention of him all through this thread.

He did handle faster and more powerful opponents than himself. He had tremendous height and reach at the lower weights, but proved as he moved up that he'd progressed enough to not be utterly dependent on those advantages. At his 130 pound peak, one commentator described him as one of the only four classical champions in boxing. (Don't ask me to identify the other three that broadcaster was referring to, as he didn't elaborate further, and I don't recall who the announcer was, only that it wasn't Cosell, and that it was during one of Arguello's defenses at 130, possibly Leon.)

Manager Eduardo Roman said his knockout effectiveness stemmed more from precision placement rather than raw power. His execution was such that between Marcel in February 1974, and Pryor I in November 1982, only a peaking fellow master boxer in Vilomar Fernandez was able to sneak a ten round MD past him, a streak of 25 bouts covering nearly nine years.

This is not an attempt to answer the thread question, just citing an example of technical excellence in somebody who won all 16 of his title defenses in three weight divisions.

It's about time somebody Alexis up. I've been looking for mention of him all through this thread.

He did handle faster and more powerful opponents than himself. He had tremendous height and reach at the lower weights, but proved as he moved up that he'd progressed enough to not be utterly dependent on those advantages. At his 130 pound peak, one commentator described him as one of the only four classical champions in boxing. (Don't ask me to identify the other three that broadcaster was referring to, as he didn't elaborate further, and I don't recall who the announcer was, only that it wasn't Cosell, and that it was during one of Arguello's defenses at 130, possibly Leon.)

Manager Eduardo Roman said his knockout effectiveness stemmed more from precision placement rather than raw power. His execution was such that between Marcel in February 1974, and Pryor I in November 1982, only a peaking fellow master boxer in Vilomar Fernandez was able to sneak a ten round MD past him, a streak of 25 bouts covering nearly nine years.

This is not an attempt to answer the thread question, just citing an example of technical excellence in somebody who won all 16 of his title defenses in three weight divisions.

it's a very excellent example though. arguello was technically gifted those fast neither of hand or foot. he used maximum leverage to put the most beef into his punches, despite being a beanpole at each weight class. his timing was brilliant and set up his shots. one of the better examples of technique creating power and compensating for speed

Of course not. Is this in response to the Wlad technical big man statement. If he was shrunken down, I don't think he'd be a good technical big man. No, but seriously, can one by limited or basic while being a technician? Are my standards just too low when it comes to Heavyweights, particularly the Super-Heavyweights.

Agreed, creativity and spontaneity are just as important as speed & power in my opinion. A lot of them comes through almost instinctual, which is learned, but a boxing brain that allows for flexibility is a far more effective fighter than a rigid 1-2 technician. You can be almost too technical in a sense if it stifles creative and spontaneous initiatives as a boxing.

So you would argue that, speed or spectacular speed, is "more important" than advanced technique. "Speed replaces craft."

...NOTHING replaces craft!

Don't you think that the poor craft of so many so-called contenders today can be laid at the feet of your position? American trainers are all about flash and style and overlook -or don't understand- substance.

We agree that speed is important, man. Speed kills, yes indeed. And it's hard to overcome if you don't know what you're doing. There is a way to fight speed -one way- and it's rooted in craft. Vernon at 2:28...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Yes I would argue that. Take the most dominant fighters in history and a lot of them have one thing in common and that is tremendous speed, timing specifically, which is the most important facet of speed. Floyd Mayweather JR for example doesnt blind us with hand and foot speed but his timing in defense and offense is impecable. Rocky Marciano same thing.

In the case of Vernon Forrest I believe he was a way better technically skilled fighter than Mosley was fast, and his timing was indeed very good.

Mosley is a good example of a guy who got pretty far using his speed but wasnt the most technically sound fighter using that speed. Mosley possessed speed and power but he never bedazzled me with anything more than average technical form.

A better example would be DLH/Mosley where you had two equally skilled fighters and the quicker guy won using his quickness.

DLH is another great example of a guy who was not the complete fighter but was able to make up for a lot his technical lackings with blazing speed. DLH years into his championship run was still trying to develop a righthand!

I dont know why you dont believe Roy Jones is a good example? I specifically used the Toney fight as an example. I believe James was about as technically sound as they came and he could not offer anything to offset the speed of Jones and Jones didnt win that fight on anything other than speed and in one sided domination.
If we are comparing the extremes of speed and technical skills to each other as in the case of Toney Jones speed comes out on top.

You cant apply speed to technique but you can always apply and advance technique to speed.

Speed and power can negate any amount of technical perfection.
" It only takes one punch",as a despairing Jim Corbett shouted to a bloody , but unbowed Jim Jeffries.
In truth, I don't know the answer,and I suspect there is not a definitive one.

good honest answer. There are examples for the strengths of all of these Power,speed and technical perfection and its almost like rock,sizzors,paper if you know that game...we have all seen each one of these strengths beat the other from time to time

Of course not. Is this in response to the Wlad technical big man statement. If he was shrunken down, I don't think he'd be a good technical big man. No, but seriously, can one by limited or basic while being a technician? Are my standards just too low when it comes to Heavyweights, particularly the Super-Heavyweights.

Anyone calling 1-2-3 jump back Wlad "a technician" should be strapped to a chair with their eyelids clamped back and forced to watch film of Ortiz, Arguello, Johnson, Louis, and Chavez for 142 hours or until such time that they repent.

Yes I would argue that. Take the most dominant fighters in history and a lot of them have one thing in common and that is tremendous speed, timing specifically, which is the most important facet of speed. Floyd Mayweather JR for example doesnt blind us with hand and foot speed but his timing in defense and offense is impecable. Rocky Marciano same thing.

In the case of Vernon Forrest I believe he was a way better technically skilled fighter than Mosley was fast, and his timing was indeed very good.

Mosley is a good example of a guy who got pretty far using his speed but wasnt the most technically sound fighter using that speed. Mosley possessed speed and power but he never bedazzled me with anything more than average technical form.

A better example would be DLH/Mosley where you had two equally skilled fighters and the quicker guy won using his quickness.

DLH is another great example of a guy who was not the complete fighter but was able to make up for a lot his technical lackings with blazing speed. DLH years into his championship run was still trying to develop a righthand!

I dont know why you dont believe Roy Jones is a good example? I specifically used the Toney fight as an example. I believe James was about as technically sound as they came and he could not offer anything to offset the speed of Jones and Jones didnt win that fight on anything other than speed and in one sided domination.
If we are comparing the extremes of speed and technical skills to each other as in the case of Toney Jones speed comes out on top.

You cant apply speed to technique but you can always apply and advance technique to speed.

I offered Jones in probably my first post as an extreme example, as an exception. Your bringing him up suggests that you are conceding the point. The point is that Jones, Ali, and Hamed are supreme examples of superior athletes who went far based on something approaching pure athleticism. They're exceptions that prove the rule.

Look at it like this...

Let's says somebody named Fred was an aspiring boxer. One day Fred was walking to the gym when a bolt from a spaceship struck him and gave him outlandish speed. Suddenly, no technician in the world could do a thing with him because none of them could gauge his speed. That kind of speed is miraculous. He changes his name to Flash and becomes a world-beater.

Does Flash make you right? Does Flash prove that speedy guys beat technicians?

No. Flash is exceptional. Foreman, for example, was a poor technician but he was so damn strong and hit so damn hard, guys with more advanced craft had a tough time with him. Would you say that Foreman proves power beats technicians? No. Power is the great equalizer and may at times beat the technician, but technicians can usually take those guys. Boxing has answers. It isn't such a simplistic activity that big or fast punches rule it.

Sure, there are fighters so damn fast or who hit so damn hard, or both that they can beat technicians, but you are arguing that that is the norm. And that's where I think you're wrong.

Boxing is a craft. It's a science. Science has answers. Southpaws used to give everybody fits, because they were so rare. Now everyone should know ways to deal with them that take away their edge.

In the same way, speed can usually be handled. Power too. Every now and then a phenomenon will rise up (like Jones) and wreak havoc on guys with more experience, better craft, better resumes. But they are exceptions. And when they age, their off-the-charts athleticism diminishes, and their no longer the friggin Incredible Hulk wrecking everyone, they can end up looking like Doc Bruce Banner